So having watch the last 3 Wimby men's finals, and with 2008 fresh in memory*, do any of you who voted for "faster combo" want to change your vote?

*My favorite part of this poll is that some of those most vehimantly opposed to the "slower combo" don't have memories of the 1990s. Fellas, the 1990s were soooo uninteresting that the powers that be at Wimby felt compelled to change things up! The fact that you have no valid memories of the '90s makes it kind of convevient, I suppose, to argue to change things back

So in fact you want changes in the game to be made only to please the spectators?I don't agree. The changes should be aimed for the players and the diversity, not for the spectators.

It's about the playahs... the playahs, the playahs, the playahs. I talk about surface and diversity and variety, and lack thereof in today's game, below (if I sound like a broken record, well... ) In the abscense of variety, I prefer the spectacle.

pawan: What does Federer aproaching or not approaching the net have to do with Wimbledon slowing down?

Babblelot's response:pawan1. You think it's criminal that a claycourter can win Wimby and define a claycourter as someone who plays defensive from the baseline

2. You and Dmast argue that slower courts and bigger, more powerful racquets preclude players from attacking

3. (As I stated, in his SF match v Safin, Fed was outplayed at net by Marat) You note that Federer is so good from the baseline, that he doesn't need to attack

Babblelot1. What's the difference between two guys with excellent defense who can hit winners from the baseline and rarely attack irrespective of court speed?

2. Pat Rafter says you're both wrong. Pat says, I'll beat you like no one has beaten you before. I could hang back with my big, powerful, high-tech racquet like every single player on tour today, but I'm committed to attack you, not only when I serve, but when you serve, as well--I don't care that you are the biggest server in the world (143mph) or that your name is Sampars. AND, I'll do it on (fast) grass and (slower) hardcourts. Surface speed don't matter. Put me on a court, and I'll attack and neutralize your big serve and big groudies.

3. The fact that Federer doesn't play an attacking style because he's a superior player from the baseline is evidence of player complicity: there isn't variety in today's game because, as monster stated, it's easier to thump groundies than to learn an all-court game.

Fed doesn't play differently at the US Open than he does at the AO or RG or Halle or Wimby. The point is, aggressive players develop and commit to an all-court game and attack irrespective of the surface. All others construct points from the baseline. And Fed is the best from the baseline. Today, the aggressive players are Stepanek, Mahut, Llodra and Ancic--heck, that's more than I can name when Rafter played. But what separates Rafter and Sampras from these guys is talent and athleticism. Federer has both the talent and athleticism.

2. You and Dmast argue that slower courts and bigger, more powerful racquets preclude players from attacking

This is an extreme simplification of my point. The racquet technology isn't just about power. It's about being able to hit shot routinely that players couldn't hit in the past. It's about spin and the ability to hit off center shots without losing effectiveness.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

2. You and Dmast argue that slower courts and bigger, more powerful racquets preclude players from attacking

This is an extreme simplification of my point. The racquet technology isn't just about power. It's about being able to hit shot routinely that players couldn't hit in the past. It's about spin and the ability to hit off center shots without losing effectiveness.

You, too, are using an extreme simplification of your point. Sounds like you are describing Nadal. Players in general can't do what he does.

Anyway, I'm arguing that by the late 1990s, virtually all players save for Rafter were enjoying the new found freedom big, high tech racquets afforded them. Pat had one himself. Instead of playing from the baseline like his peers, however, he had dedicated his career to the S&V and attacking off the return, +100x per match.

Stepanek is not my ideal speciman, but he's the best in today's game. You talk about winning propositions. Ranked #12 in the world, Radek says you're wrong on that point, too. And there are hundreds and hundreds of baseliners who wish they were half as successful as Stepanek. So depending how you count--Radek is either alone or group him with Ancic, Llodra and Mahut--it doesn't really matter. His unique style yields dividends. And if you want to count the other three, there are still hundreds and hundreds of baseliners who wish they were half as successful as they, ranked 24, 36 and 59, respectively.

2. You and Dmast argue that slower courts and bigger, more powerful racquets preclude players from attacking

This is an extreme simplification of my point. The racquet technology isn't just about power. It's about being able to hit shot routinely that players couldn't hit in the past. It's about spin and the ability to hit off center shots without losing effectiveness.

You, too, are using an extreme simplification of your point. Sounds like you are describing Nadal. Players in general can't do what he does.

Anyway, I'm arguing that by the late 1990s, virtually all players save for Rafter were enjoying the new found freedom big, high tech racquets afforded them. Pat had one himself. Instead of playing from the baseline like his peers, however, he had dedicated his career to the S&V and attacking off the return, +100x per match.

Stepanek is not my ideal speciman, but he's the best in today's game. You talk about winning propositions. Ranked #12 in the world, Radek says you're wrong on that point, too. And there are hundreds and hundreds of baseliners who wish they were half as successful as Stepanek. So depending how you count--Radek is either alone or group him with Ancic, Llodra and Mahut--it doesn't really matter. His unique style yields dividends. And if you want to count the other three, there are still hundreds and hundreds of baseliners who wish they were half as successful as they, ranked 24, 36 and 59, respectively.

I wouldn't argue that you or I could hit shots like Nadal, but I do think at least I've hit shots that Becker's generation would have been happy with, and a few players in the Sampras/Agassi generation as well. The difference is in the consistancy, and dependableness of the normal shots, as well as movement.Yes they felt free-er, but didn't have the confidence to hit out as much as the next generation. I think you can see a very clear growth in technique on groundstrokes following the addition of a new technology, but usually that growth comes about 5 or 6 years after the technology appears.As for your group of players. I would consider them attacking, all court players, not serve/volleyers (that's being picky though). None of them are as successfull as they would like to be. For every one of them there are 3 or 4 who don't attack, and are just as successfull, if not more. How many times have you seen any of them in the top 10? After a bit of research, Stepanek has been as high as #8, but that is it. Ancic's high is 47, Llodra's success has been doubles (understandably). His high has been #34. Mahut's high is #25.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

2. You and Dmast argue that slower courts and bigger, more powerful racquets preclude players from attacking

This is an extreme simplification of my point. The racquet technology isn't just about power. It's about being able to hit shot routinely that players couldn't hit in the past. It's about spin and the ability to hit off center shots without losing effectiveness.

You, too, are using an extreme simplification of your point. Sounds like you are describing Nadal. Players in general can't do what he does.

Anyway, I'm arguing that by the late 1990s, virtually all players save for Rafter were enjoying the new found freedom big, high tech racquets afforded them. Pat had one himself. Instead of playing from the baseline like his peers, however, he had dedicated his career to the S&V and attacking off the return, +100x per match.

Stepanek is not my ideal speciman, but he's the best in today's game. You talk about winning propositions. Ranked #12 in the world, Radek says you're wrong on that point, too. And there are hundreds and hundreds of baseliners who wish they were half as successful as Stepanek. So depending how you count--Radek is either alone or group him with Ancic, Llodra and Mahut--it doesn't really matter. His unique style yields dividends. And if you want to count the other three, there are still hundreds and hundreds of baseliners who wish they were half as successful as they, ranked 24, 36 and 59, respectively.

I wouldn't argue that you or I could hit shots like Nadal, but I do think at least I've hit shots that Becker's generation would have been happy with, and a few players in the Sampras/Agassi generation as well. The difference is in the consistancy, and dependableness of the normal shots, as well as movement.Yes they felt free-er, but didn't have the confidence to hit out as much as the next generation. I think you can see a very clear growth in technique on groundstrokes following the addition of a new technology, but usually that growth comes about 5 or 6 years after the technology appears.As for your group of players. I would consider them attacking, all court players, not serve/volleyers (that's being picky though). None of them are as successfull as they would like to be. For every one of them there are 3 or 4 who don't attack, and are just as successfull, if not more. How many times have you seen any of them in the top 10? After a bit of research, Stepanek has been as high as #8, but that is it. Ancic's high is 47, Llodra's success has been doubles (understandably). His high has been #34. Mahut's high is #25.

No one on earth is as successful as they'd like to be. Heck, Roger would like to be holding his 6th Wimby trophy right now.

Kind of beside the point, but I did miss that with Stepanek, he's currently #12 but has been as high as #8 (7/06). Mario is currently #24 but was as high as #7 (7/06). I'm far, far from a glass-half-full guy, but, dizzam! that's success!!! ...in my book, anyway. All for guys have enjoyed great success. Hard to believe a guy like Ancic or Mahut could have done so well without the variety they show (but that's only speculation...and yet, it is hard to imagine, at least for me it is).

1. If you want to make a case against the new surface, Fed's serve isn't the place to start.

2. In 183 pts played v Safin, Fed made just 14 UE.

3. Fed didn't drop a set going into the final.

At some point you guys are going to have to stop all the fussin'.

*Footnote: Fed was outstanding at net. He approached 75 times and won 56% of the points (42). Nadal, too, displayed perhaps more variety than given credit for, approaching the net 31x and winning an impressive 71% of those points (22).

How 'bout this.All players use the same wood racquets and gut strings that Mac and Borg used.Clay is clay (slow high bounce) and grass is grass (very fast low bounce). Set the standards and keep the standards. Let the players evolve and not the game we love.

I mean really, could you imagine Barry Bonds with some freakin' aluminium bat!!!!

Very few other sports change the equipment and field so drastically that it actually changes the game as severely as tennis does.

As DMast would probably point out at this stage- it's all about the money! i.e. the manufacturers.

How 'bout this.All players use the same wood racquets and gut strings that Mac and Borg used.Clay is clay (slow high bounce) and grass is grass (very fast low bounce). Set the standards and keep the standards. Let the players evolve and not the game we love.

I mean really, could you imagine Barry Bonds with some freakin' aluminium bat!!!!

Very few other sports change the equipment and field so drastically that it actually changes the game as severely as tennis does.

As DMast would probably point out at this stage- it's all about the money! i.e. the manufacturers.

I would say that is a major part of recent technology. I think we can all agree that much of the technology in the last 15 years or so (poly strings and O-ports aside) have been pretty much window dressing. New year, new paint job, new new new hi modulous graphite, and another dampening system or something. But the main advances have been significant.That being said, reintroducing wood racquets would definitely change the game. Possibly for the better in some ways, but I do like the shot making players can acheive now. It's astounding at times.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

How 'bout this.All players use the same wood racquets and gut strings that Mac and Borg used.Clay is clay (slow high bounce) and grass is grass (very fast low bounce). Set the standards and keep the standards. Let the players evolve and not the game we love.

I mean really, could you imagine Barry Bonds with some freakin' aluminium bat!!!!

Very few other sports change the equipment and field so drastically that it actually changes the game as severely as tennis does.

As DMast would probably point out at this stage- it's all about the money! i.e. the manufacturers.

I would say that is a major part of recent technology. I think we can all agree that much of the technology in the last 15 years or so (poly strings and O-ports aside) have been pretty much window dressing. New year, new paint job, new new new hi modulous graphite, and another dampening system or something. But the main advances have been significant.That being said, reintroducing wood racquets would definitely change the game. Possibly for the better in some ways, but I do like the shot making players can acheive now. It's astounding at times.

Agreed, some of the shotmaking these days is absolutley stunning but I'm as much a fan of the offensive lob as a 100mph inside-out FH and I think there are many shots which have all but disappeared from the game.

How 'bout this.All players use the same wood racquets and gut strings that Mac and Borg used.Clay is clay (slow high bounce) and grass is grass (very fast low bounce). Set the standards and keep the standards. Let the players evolve and not the game we love.

I mean really, could you imagine Barry Bonds with some freakin' aluminium bat!!!!

Very few other sports change the equipment and field so drastically that it actually changes the game as severely as tennis does.

As DMast would probably point out at this stage- it's all about the money! i.e. the manufacturers.

I would say that is a major part of recent technology. I think we can all agree that much of the technology in the last 15 years or so (poly strings and O-ports aside) have been pretty much window dressing. New year, new paint job, new new new hi modulous graphite, and another dampening system or something. But the main advances have been significant.That being said, reintroducing wood racquets would definitely change the game. Possibly for the better in some ways, but I do like the shot making players can acheive now. It's astounding at times.

Agreed, some of the shotmaking these days is absolutley stunning but I'm as much a fan of the offensive lob as a 100mph inside-out FH and I think there are many shots which have all but disappeared from the game.

Offensive lobs these days are better hit than with wood frames. Shots that are missing with today's set ups are touch shots. It's pretty hard to hit touch shots with poly strings and stiff string beds. Gut is much better for that. Plus the power pretty much overcomes attempts to hit with touch.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

How 'bout this.All players use the same wood racquets and gut strings that Mac and Borg used.Clay is clay (slow high bounce) and grass is grass (very fast low bounce). Set the standards and keep the standards. Let the players evolve and not the game we love.

I mean really, could you imagine Barry Bonds with some freakin' aluminium bat!!!!

Very few other sports change the equipment and field so drastically that it actually changes the game as severely as tennis does.

As DMast would probably point out at this stage- it's all about the money! i.e. the manufacturers.

I would say that is a major part of recent technology. I think we can all agree that much of the technology in the last 15 years or so (poly strings and O-ports aside) have been pretty much window dressing. New year, new paint job, new new new hi modulous graphite, and another dampening system or something. But the main advances have been significant.That being said, reintroducing wood racquets would definitely change the game. Possibly for the better in some ways, but I do like the shot making players can acheive now. It's astounding at times.

Agreed, some of the shotmaking these days is absolutley stunning but I'm as much a fan of the offensive lob as a 100mph inside-out FH and I think there are many shots which have all but disappeared from the game.

Offensive lobs these days are better hit than with wood frames. Shots that are missing with today's set ups are touch shots. It's pretty hard to hit touch shots with poly strings and stiff string beds. Gut is much better for that. Plus the power pretty much overcomes attempts to hit with touch.

I'm fooling with some softer strings now in my old HTours tho' I think those are the frames that do well with the poly. Will eventually try some gut in the PS 85's just to see what it's like.

Reminds me of an interesting comment I heard regarding Sampras's racquet/string selection in 08 v. 07. I guess he tried the KFed (not sure what strings) in 07 and has reverted back to the NCode 6.1 (not sure which strings). According to the WTT coach being interviewed it's had a big impact on his game.

Speaking of which, I got to hit the KFed again last Fri with a full poly set and just couldn't believe the control I had. It didn't 'feel' great, but the control was awesome.

The slow grass is why I made the controversial statement that Sampras would only have a few wimby titles if he had to play on it. I got it from all sides on that one!!

grass may be a little slower but it is still a big server friendly and a big hitter friendly. how else can you explain Fed`s 25 aces and 89 winners against one of the greatest defensive players of all time. he couldnt get a ball past Nadal on clay and yet hits for nearly 90 winners on grass.

its just an excuse and a crutch for people to say that grass is similar to clay in Paris. its the game itself that is a lot faster than it has ever been. these guys are hitting 100 MPH forehands and 93+ MPH backhands even on slower surfaces.Fed hits a 100 MPH forehand here and there on clay. he hit one forehand at 101 MPH on grass. his serve is jsut a monster on grass. he never lost his serve in Halle. he lost his serve just twice before running into Nadal.

at Roland Garros, Nadal toyed with his serve and broke it 7 or 8 times. for the tournament (Roland Garros), Nadal broke serve better than 2 times out of 3. he does that on grass, nobody would ever win more than 2 games in a set against him.

How 'bout this.All players use the same wood racquets and gut strings that Mac and Borg used.Clay is clay (slow high bounce) and grass is grass (very fast low bounce). Set the standards and keep the standards. Let the players evolve and not the game we love.

I mean really, could you imagine Barry Bonds with some freakin' aluminium bat!!!!

Very few other sports change the equipment and field so drastically that it actually changes the game as severely as tennis does.

As DMast would probably point out at this stage- it's all about the money! i.e. the manufacturers.

I would say that is a major part of recent technology. I think we can all agree that much of the technology in the last 15 years or so (poly strings and O-ports aside) have been pretty much window dressing. New year, new paint job, new new new hi modulous graphite, and another dampening system or something. But the main advances have been significant.That being said, reintroducing wood racquets would definitely change the game. Possibly for the better in some ways, but I do like the shot making players can acheive now. It's astounding at times.

Agreed, some of the shotmaking these days is absolutley stunning but I'm as much a fan of the offensive lob as a 100mph inside-out FH and I think there are many shots which have all but disappeared from the game.

Offensive lobs these days are better hit than with wood frames. Shots that are missing with today's set ups are touch shots. It's pretty hard to hit touch shots with poly strings and stiff string beds. Gut is much better for that. Plus the power pretty much overcomes attempts to hit with touch.

I'm fooling with some softer strings now in my old HTours tho' I think those are the frames that do well with the poly. Will eventually try some gut in the PS 85's just to see what it's like.

Reminds me of an interesting comment I heard regarding Sampras's racquet/string selection in 08 v. 07. I guess he tried the KFed (not sure what strings) in 07 and has reverted back to the NCode 6.1 (not sure which strings). According to the WTT coach being interviewed it's had a big impact on his game.

Speaking of which, I got to hit the KFed again last Fri with a full poly set and just couldn't believe the control I had. It didn't 'feel' great, but the control was awesome.

I agree on the control part. It's amazing how much control I had when I first started using the K-fed.I had heard Sampras needed the larger surface area to get more power on the backhand. But that was last year.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

The slow grass is why I made the controversial statement that Sampras would only have a few wimby titles if he had to play on it. I got it from all sides on that one!!

grass may be a little slower but it is still a big server friendly and a big hitter friendly. how else can you explain Fed`s 25 aces and 89 winners against one of the greatest defensive players of all time. he couldnt get a ball past Nadal on clay and yet hits for nearly 90 winners on grass.

its just an excuse and a crutch for people to say that grass is similar to clay in Paris. its the game itself that is a lot faster than it has ever been. these guys are hitting 100 MPH forehands and 93+ MPH backhands even on slower surfaces.Fed hits a 100 MPH forehand here and there on clay. he hit one forehand at 101 MPH on grass. his serve is jsut a monster on grass. he never lost his serve in Halle. he lost his serve just twice before running into Nadal.

at Roland Garros, Nadal toyed with his serve and broke it 7 or 8 times. for the tournament (Roland Garros), Nadal broke serve better than 2 times out of 3. he does that on grass, nobody would ever win more than 2 games in a set against him.

I threw down some ha-lacious stats supporting ^^^^ this ^^^^ view, too. I think I've finally boiled the crux of the matter down to this: Federer, Roddick and Blake fans look for excuses when their favorite players lose.

The slow grass is why I made the controversial statement that Sampras would only have a few wimby titles if he had to play on it. I got it from all sides on that one!!

grass may be a little slower but it is still a big server friendly and a big hitter friendly. how else can you explain Fed`s 25 aces and 89 winners against one of the greatest defensive players of all time. he couldnt get a ball past Nadal on clay and yet hits for nearly 90 winners on grass.

its just an excuse and a crutch for people to say that grass is similar to clay in Paris. its the game itself that is a lot faster than it has ever been. these guys are hitting 100 MPH forehands and 93+ MPH backhands even on slower surfaces.Fed hits a 100 MPH forehand here and there on clay. he hit one forehand at 101 MPH on grass. his serve is jsut a monster on grass. he never lost his serve in Halle. he lost his serve just twice before running into Nadal.

at Roland Garros, Nadal toyed with his serve and broke it 7 or 8 times. for the tournament (Roland Garros), Nadal broke serve better than 2 times out of 3. he does that on grass, nobody would ever win more than 2 games in a set against him.

I threw down some ha-lacious stats supporting ^^^^ this ^^^^ view, too. I think I've finally boiled the crux of the matter down to this: Federer, Roddick and Blake fans look for excuses when their favorite players lose.

We have had a nice intelligent discussion here. Why do we have to go down this road?

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

The slow grass is why I made the controversial statement that Sampras would only have a few wimby titles if he had to play on it. I got it from all sides on that one!!

grass may be a little slower but it is still a big server friendly and a big hitter friendly. how else can you explain Fed`s 25 aces and 89 winners against one of the greatest defensive players of all time. he couldnt get a ball past Nadal on clay and yet hits for nearly 90 winners on grass.

its just an excuse and a crutch for people to say that grass is similar to clay in Paris. its the game itself that is a lot faster than it has ever been. these guys are hitting 100 MPH forehands and 93+ MPH backhands even on slower surfaces.Fed hits a 100 MPH forehand here and there on clay. he hit one forehand at 101 MPH on grass. his serve is jsut a monster on grass. he never lost his serve in Halle. he lost his serve just twice before running into Nadal.

at Roland Garros, Nadal toyed with his serve and broke it 7 or 8 times. for the tournament (Roland Garros), Nadal broke serve better than 2 times out of 3. he does that on grass, nobody would ever win more than 2 games in a set against him.

I threw down some ha-lacious stats supporting ^^^^ this ^^^^ view, too. I think I've finally boiled the crux of the matter down to this: Federer, Roddick and Blake fans look for excuses when their favorite players lose.

We have had a nice intelligent discussion here. Why do we have to go down this road?

When did it turn nice? herc's comment is a non sequitur. I'm replying to that discussion, not yours.

In fact, there are three separate discussion taking place in this thread.1. Do you like or dislike the changes to Wimby (Federer discussion)?2. Will S&V return?3. Has technology gone too far?

The slow grass is why I made the controversial statement that Sampras would only have a few wimby titles if he had to play on it. I got it from all sides on that one!!

grass may be a little slower but it is still a big server friendly and a big hitter friendly. how else can you explain Fed`s 25 aces and 89 winners against one of the greatest defensive players of all time. he couldnt get a ball past Nadal on clay and yet hits for nearly 90 winners on grass.

its just an excuse and a crutch for people to say that grass is similar to clay in Paris. its the game itself that is a lot faster than it has ever been. these guys are hitting 100 MPH forehands and 93+ MPH backhands even on slower surfaces.Fed hits a 100 MPH forehand here and there on clay. he hit one forehand at 101 MPH on grass. his serve is jsut a monster on grass. he never lost his serve in Halle. he lost his serve just twice before running into Nadal.

at Roland Garros, Nadal toyed with his serve and broke it 7 or 8 times. for the tournament (Roland Garros), Nadal broke serve better than 2 times out of 3. he does that on grass, nobody would ever win more than 2 games in a set against him.

I threw down some ha-lacious stats supporting ^^^^ this ^^^^ view, too. I think I've finally boiled the crux of the matter down to this: Federer, Roddick and Blake fans look for excuses when their favorite players lose.

We have had a nice intelligent discussion here. Why do we have to go down this road?

When did it turn nice? herc's comment is a non sequitur. I'm replying to that discussion, not yours.

In fact, there are three separate discussion taking place in this thread.1. Do you like or dislike the changes to Wimby (Federer discussion)?2. Will S&V return?3. Has technology gone too far?

Deal me out of any discussion of how Fed fans do this or think that, or how Nadal fans think this or that. I bow out of that.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)